2016 78 Codes Review Panel ASA Secretariat PO Box 10675 Wellington 13th April 2016

Submission on the: REVIEW OF THE CODE FOR ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN AND

THE CHILDREN’S CODE FOR ADVERTISING FOOD

From the Healthy Eating, Active Living Tai Tokerau (H.E.A.L) Network

Thank you for coordinating a review of these Children’s Advertising Codes and allowing an

open submission process.

The H.E.A.L Network is a network of people from nutrition and physical activity health and

wellbeing workforce across Northland. The networks’ vision is that the people of Tai

Tokerau live, learn and grow in environments that support healthy eating and physical

activity. The purpose of the network is to collaborate on actions that foster and support a

sustainable healthy eating and active living environment for the people of Tai Tokerau. As a

network we believe that good health is a fundamental right, and the collective responsibility

of all society and that making healthy choices needs to be easy. The environment and setting

in which choices are made are a key factor in determining people’s health and choices. We

all work in health and nutrition and know that there is no stand alone “cure” for obesity, but a

combination of changes to the environment we live in, services and the food system will all

contribute to improving the situation. We feel strongly that food advertising has a great

influence on the food choices our families and children make as well as their perception of

certain foods and or brands.

Below are the key points this network wishes to elaborate on and or support.

Key Points:

Food advertising and marketing is a contributing factor to the current obesity

epidemic.

A child should be defined as anyone under the age of 18 years of age, as is used by

the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as being consistent

with the New Zealand Childhood Obesity Plan.

The ASA’s interpretation of the regulations set out in the code favour the interests of

advertisers, and should instead prioritise the interests of children. Advertising affects

food choices and obesity rates, which means food advertising is a public health issue

and children need to be offered protection from advertising.

The complaints process is difficult to understand, and is weighted on the side of the

advertiser.

o Once a complaint is received, advertisements continue to run while a decision

is being made. Once a decision is made that is no penalty or deterrent to the

advertiser or the broadcaster other than to cease showing the advertisement.

This does not encourage people to make complaints and it does not protect

children from harmful advertising.

o Penalties for the advertiser and broadcaster that are relevant to the breach need

to be in place.

o In order for the code to be effective it must be enforced.

We support and recommend that only healthy foods should be advertised to

children.The contentious issue is how to define a ‘healthy’ food.

o For children we strongly recommend being cautious and not using the Health

Star Rating as there are inconsistencies and anomalies in the star rating

between categories and products. We recommend the Heart Foundation

Fuelled 4 Life buyers guide is used to categories healthy foods and only

“Everyday” foods are allowed to be advertised.

ASA code should reflect the 7 principles of Sydney Principles.

We acknowledge the great wealth of research that shows “food advertising, marketing and

promotion has an effect on children’s (and adults) preferences, purchase behaviour and

consumption and that is effect is independent of other factors, and operates at both a brand

and category level”. New Zealand has high rates of adult and childhood overweight and

obesity and therefore the link between regulation of advertising and improving Public Health

is necessary. We support WHO’s statement in the recent Report of the Commission Ending

Childhood Obesity; “There is unequivocal evidence that the marketing of unhealthy foods

and sugar-sweetened beverages is related to childhood obesity. Despite the increasing

number of voluntary efforts by industry, exposure to the marketing of unhealthy foods

remains a major issue demanding change that will protect all children equally. Any attempt

to tackle childhood obesity should therefore, include a reduction in exposure of children to,

and the power of, marketing.”

Although marketing affects children and adults, the important ethical point for advertising to

children is that children do not understand the persuasive nature of marketing until early

adolescence. If we know that children do not understand the intent of marketers and are

influenced by their messages, we should do our best to protect them from the influences of

advertisers.

The following are our responses to your questions.

1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two current Children’s Codes? Strengths:

The current codes are comprehensive and cover the responsibility of advertisers to ensure

advertising is ethical and responsible.

Weaknesses:

Although the content of the Children’s Codes cover most situations, they are open to some

interpretation and are not adequately implemented or monitored.

The Codes do not address aggressively enough the prevalence of values and emotion-based

advertising techniques aimed at children through imagery, slogans and additional incentives

to consuming and purchasing unhealthy foods.

The Children’s Advertising Codes do not address responsible marketing of products e.g.

product placement responsibilities in stores which can contravene Principle 1(b): children

should not be urged in advertisements to ask their parents, guardians or caregivers to buy

particular products for them.

The Children’s Code 3(b) Persons or characters well known to children should not be used to

endorse food high in fat, salt and/or sugar needs to be tightened more to monitor the use of

aligning to children’s movie, popular books and games as an enticement to purchase

unhealthy foods.

2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current complaints process?

Strengths:

There is a complaints process

There are a number of representatives from outside the advertising and business sector

It is a cost effective system

Weaknesses:

Members of the complaints board do not declare conflicts of interest

There is no compulsion or legal enforceability of the code

The process is time consuming and difficult for people to make complaints

The code is interpreted in a very limited manner, often on the side of providing

advertising freedom.

Advertisements still air while a decision is being made.

There is no penalty for the broadcaster or the advertiser if an advertisement is found

to be in breach of the code, aside from withdrawing the advertisement, which may

have come to the end of its run anyway.

No corrective advertising in place for obvious deception in regards to the health value

of a food or obvious falsehoods or breaches of the code.

3. What changes, if any, are necessary to protect the rights of children and their health /

wellbeing?

A time restriction: As per Principle 3 of ASA Code of Advertising -Alcohol, the

time limitations 6am - 8.30pm stipulated in this principle should also be applied to

both of the Children’s codes.

Tighter evaluation and monitoring of advertisements played in all advertising

mediums (social media, YouTube, internet etc.)

No junk/ unhealthy foods allowed for marketing. All foods marketed must be

healthy as defined by a panel of nutrition/health experts with no biases to industry,

manufactures etc. The use of well developed nutrient profiling tools may be used in

the process.

4. Please comment on any concerns you have with different media formats in relation to

advertising to children (for example: magazines, television, social media, websites).

Online media is a type of advertising media that children are increasingly been exposed

to. Although the code covers online media, monitoring and regulation of these sites may be

difficult. Our codes need to be robust enough to deal with new media types and styles.

Just a general comment in regards to the imagery used in unhealthy food advertising that

appeals to a young audience across all media outputs.

· Unhealthy foods are often associated with visual imagery that evokes excitement, a sense

of fun and adventure, belonging, playfulness, curiosity, discovery and other values that

appeal to a child’s senses. The use of bright colours, busy patterns, flowing fonts, rounded

shapes, punctuation for emphasis (e.g. exclamation marks), brand characters (e.g. clowns,

furry animals), photographic imagery of happy children and/or families enjoying the products

and high resolution graphics all combine together to an intoxicating mix to lure children into

engaging with the products.

· In audio advertising, voiceovers can be engineered to deliberately capture a youthful

audience. A higher pitch/tone of voice, a faster delivery and the use of a younger voice are

examples of advertising that is again potent and attractive to children.

5. If the content of advertisements is a concern, can you please give examples and / or

supporting evidence? A product name and ad description would be helpful so we can

source the advertisements.

Example of sponsorship and advertising on a New Zealand parenting website:

http://www.kidspot.co.nz/SchoolHolidayPlanner/index.asp?show=1

6. If the placement of advertisements is a concern, can you please give examples and / or

supporting evidence? For broadcast media it would be helpful to have the time / date /

channel or programme, for other media, a link / publication title / outdoor location

would be appreciated.

We are concerned with the placement of Junk Food Ads at times when large numbers of

children are watching. Examples include during The Simpsons (7pm weekdays), Modern

Family, Home and Away (5.30pm weeknights), Neighbours (6pm weeknights) and Shortland

Street (7pm weeknights). During this time period there are a high number of advertisements

for treat foods and fast food restaurants including Snickers Bars, McDonalds, KFC, Burger

King, Domino’s and Pizza Hut. These advertisements the ASA feels are not currently are not

in breach of the code as they are not directly targeting children. However they are in a

timeslot where many children will see the advertisements and as per clause 2(b)

Advertisements should be understood by children to whom they are directed, not be

ambiguous, and not mislead as to the true size, value, nature of the advertised product

7. The Children’s Codes currently define a child as under the age of 14. Do you support

or oppose this definition? Why?

We support this definition as, according to the Children’s Commissioner, the law allows

parents to leave a young person without supervision from the age of 14 and a young

person of 14 can be charged with committing a criminal offence.

We support that ‘Children’ should be as anyone under (minimum) the age of 18. The

UNICEF Convention on the rights of the Child defines children as anyone under 18 years of

age. Even the ASA acknowledges that people under 18 years of age should not be marketed

to as aggressively as adults in their Code for advertising food as described in the statement:

“Advertisers are also required to exercise a particular duty of care for food advertisements

directed at young people aged 14-17 years”

How is this interpreted? What is a ‘particular duty of care’. If a ‘particular duty of care’ is

required, this age group should come under the Children’s Code.

Sir Peter Gluckman, the Science Advisor to the New Zealand Government has stated that:

“Modern science has discovered that the last parts of the brain do not mature until 25-30

years of age. Tests of wisdom, judgement, and responsibility suggest that there is a

significant change in these skills soon after the age of 20”.

Is it ethical to advertise and use sophisticated techniques to persuade young people to buy

products when they are still developing impulse control, wisdom and judgement? The nature

of most marketing directed at teenagers is inappropriate, and often based around sexuality

and societal compliance as described by Sir Peter Gluckman in his Address to the University

of Auckland. Clearer regulations on marketing to teenagers is required. It would make sense

to include them in the definition of a child.

8. Is there a role for a nutrient profiling system such as the health star rating system in

the Children’s Codes? If yes, in what way and which system would you suggest?

We recommend only healthy foods should be marketed to children. There should be a system

of identifying and categorising healthy foods. This system should not compromise on its

values. Foods high in salt, sugar or fat should not be allowed to advertise during shows

where children are likely to be watching. This includes family shows and shows with PG

ratings.

We support the The Heart Foundation’s Fuelled 4 Life Buyers Guide as a system of profiling

food and within this only Everyday Foods should be allowed to advertise to

children. Sometimes foods, are generally foods which do not need added promotion to be

appealing to children and are not foods we wish to promote to children as ‘healthy’ or to be

consumed everyday. The buyers guide was developed for use by schools and early childhood

centres and classifies items with children’s needs in mind which makes it superior to the

Health Star Rating system.

We do not support the use of the Health Star Rating in determining which foods are healthy,

and appropriate to advertise to children. The Health Star Rating can be inconsistent, and

many products receive higher ratings than public perceive they should be. We debated

determining healthy foods as those with a Health Star Rating of 5. However as shown below

there are some surprising inconsistencies, which decrease public confidence and make the

Health Star Rating difficult to use as a way of classifying healthy choices. Health Star

Ratings are also only assigned to packaged and processed foods. The healthiest foods such as

fresh fruits and vegetables are not given health star ratings as well as lean meat, fresh

fish. Many products still do not have health star ratings. On a recent visit to the

Supermarket no sugar sweetened beverages (except milk drinks) had health star ratings and

even within breakfast cereals it was difficult to compare based on health star ratings alone as

few products had ratings.

Example 1- Breakfast Foods:

Milo drink is found in the cereal aisle next to the Up and Go receives a rating of 4.5 stars for

a chocolate milk drink, which is higher than expected. Per 100g it is quite low in added sugar

as half of the sugar comes from lactose, it is very low in fibre compared to other cereals and

has only 70mg Sodium. Chocolate flavoured milk is not a ‘core’ food nor would it be

considered a ‘healthy food’ by most consumers and we would not like it to be advertised to

children or promoted as ‘healthy’.

Nutrigrain has a rating of 4.0 Stars. It also has 26.7% sugar, with sugar being the second

ingredient by weight in the ingredients list. It is also high in sodium for a cereal with 330mg

per 100g. It would not be considered a healthy choice by most health professionals and

should not be advertised or promoted to children. In this case the rating of 4.0 stars given

seems overly generous. Of note other high sugar cereals such as Nestle Milo cereal also

recieve a 4 Health Star rating.

Pam’s Wheat Biscuits have a Health Star rating of 4.5, however Sanitarium Weet-Bix have a

health star rating of 5. The products are only marginally different. For the consumer, are the

Weet Bix a superior choice? In this case if using a cutoff of a Health Star Rating of 5

Sanatarium Weet Bix would be able to be advertised, however Pam’s Wheat-Biscuits could

not be able to be advertised.

Example 2- Vegetables:

Most New Zealanders do not eat enough vegetables (reference) and many parents struggle to

get their children to eat vegetables. Vegetables and fruit are two items most parents would be

happy to see advertised if they are unprocessed without added sugar, fat or salt. It was of

great surprise to see tinned tomatoes with a Health Star rating of 4.5, our group would have

expected tinned tomatoes, with no added salt or sugar to receive a rating of 5 Stars. Although

we acknowledge that Health Stars are determined via within category comparisons, we would

expect vegetables to have quite high ratings as they are such a beneficial food that we are

actively encouraging people to eat. The tinned tomatoes are extremely low in energy (71kJ

per 100g), low in sodium (10mg) and low in carbohydrate and sugar. What could be done to

these tomatoes for them to have a rating of 5? Is it fair for tomatoes and flavoured milo milk

to have an equal star rating? We would be happy for tinned tomatoes to be advertised, but

they would not meet our criteria of having a health star rating of 5 to qualify.

Of note frozen mixed vegetables get a health star rating of 5, we would be happy for this to

be advertised.

Tinned asparagus in Brine had a surprisingly low health star rating of 3.5. The rating we

expect is due to the salt content which is 315mg per 100g. However the food is asparagus, a

vegetable which is very low in calories and the only way to improve on the product would be

to reduce the salt content. Nutrigrain had a much higher sugar content and a marginally

higher salt content and still achieved a health star rating of 4. It seems vegetables are being

discriminated against in favour of processed foods.

Example 3 Frozen Fruit

Another anomaly in the Health Star Classification System are ratings given to frozen

fruit. As show in the photographs Pams Mixed Berries(blackberries, raspberries and

blueberries, 100% fruit no other ingredients) have a health star rating of 5, while Pam’s

Berry Smoothie (blackberries and strawberries) and Pam’s Blueberries (100% blueberries)

have a health star rating of 4.5. Are blueberries not as healthy as blackberries and

raspberries? How could frozen blueberries achieve 5 stars? We would be happy for frozen

blueberries to be marketed to children, however they do not have a health star rating of 5

(best choice, healthy food). This is another example of inconsistencies in the Health Star

Rating.

The packet to the left is for Pam’s Mixed Berries, The packet to the right is from Pam’s

Blueberries

Example 5- Protein Foods:

It seems protein foods, even when unprocessed and in their natural state have difficulty

achieving a Health Star Rating of 5. Despite children needing protein and these foods often

being foods children need encouragement to eat, if using a Health Star Rating as the

definition of “Healthy Choices” able to be advertised to children eggs, peanut butter (with no

added sugar or salt) and tuna in Springwater would not be able to be advertised. Again how

would you improve these products to give them a Health Star Rating of 5? Are these not

healthy foods? It is hard to determine how these ratings were given. If it is not easy for

Health Professionals to understand, how will the general public react to these

inconsistencies?

9. Do you support or oppose a specific guideline on sponsorship? Why?

We support a specific guideline on sponsorship. Especially in relation to the marketing of

unhealthy food options, alcohol, gambling and sugar sweetened beverages.

The precedent was set by the Smokefree Environment Act 1990 which successfully banned

tobacco advertising and sponsorships and established the Health Sponsorship Council (HSC).

This provided the ASA with proven and successful methods of sponsorship; over time we

have a society have adapted to smokefree environments as the norm. The same can be

achieved within the food and beverage industry.

Currently sponsorship arrangements are in place with a number of high profile sports teams

and players including Super Rugby, the New Zealand Cricket Team, NZ Triathlon and also a

number of high profile events such as Christmas in the Park, which are an attraction to

children. These sponsorship arrangements are inappropriate and there should be scope in the

code to control for these.

10. Do you support or oppose the introduction of independent monitoring and

evaluation of the codes? How would this work?

We strongly support that introduction of independent monitoring and evaluation of the

codes. We must ensure the Children’s Codes have the reach and depth to maintain a strong

position in a fast-changing world. A monitoring and evaluation of the code will provide a

means to stay relevant and purposeful. Regular advertising ‘audits’ could be done in varying

environments and a selection of advertisements examined in regards to their compliance to

the Advertising Codes of Practise. We strongly recommend this process as with all processes

within the Codes remain transparent.

11. What is your view of the sanctions imposed by the ASA when a complaint is upheld?

Sanctions are required to deter advertisers and broadcasters from airing inappropriate

advertising. Sanctions send a clear message that breaches will not be tolerated and relevant

punishments will be put in place. Sanctions should vary accordingly to the degree of breach

and level of operation. Sanctions should apply not only to a breach in the advertisement aired

but also if advertisement is aired in areas highly populated and frequented by children (e.g.

schools, ECEs, recreational centres etc.)

12. Are there environments where you consider it to be inappropriate to advertise to

children?

Any environment that has the potential to exploit the vulnerability of children should be free

of advertising and marketing to children. We consider it inappropriate to have advertising in

and around schools, early childhood centres, sports grounds and clubs, parks and reserves.

13. Do you support or oppose combining the two current codes? Why?

We support the combination of the two current codes as long as their content and quality

remains strong and monitoring of the codes is effective. The benefit of combining the codes

is it would be easier for parents and people making complaints to navigate the codes.

In addition, the following feedback may be outside the scope of this consultation process but

has been flagged as a potential concern for our children’s health and rights and has relevance

to children advertisement.

Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs). These are ‘treat’ beverages that provide no

nutritional value and yet are pervasive in retail outlets, events, community and family

gatherings and have entire supermarket aisles dedicated to them. The sheer

availability and accessibility of SSBs, coupled with low comparative prices to other

drinks, weakens consumer choice and buying power. Although mass public re-

education of the poor health outcomes of SSB consumption needs to be aggressive

and ongoing through strategies noted in the Child Obesity Plan (particularly Health

Star Rating promotion, partnership with industry, information and resources for

general public, public awareness campaign, health promoting schools and Healthy

Families NZ); the Children’s Codes can contribute here:

o All SSBs should forgo voluntary status and be compulsorily engaged with the

Health Star Rating nutrition labelling system (if HSR labelling system remains

the preferred choice for nutrient profiling tool).

o All SSBs should include images of tooth decay, obesity and other relevant

chronic diseases on packaging

o Retail outlets should have restrictions placed on placement and size of SSB

products in store

Another interesting area is the use of toys in fast food outlets which are directly

marketed to children e.g. the McDonald’s Happy Meal, the Burger King Jr Meal. The

presence of McDonalds Happy Meals or fast food meals with toys seems unethical in

its targeting of children. The Code of Advertising to Children Guideline 2(j) states:

Care should be taken with advertisements promoting a competition, premium or

loyalty/continuity programme to ensure that advertisements do not encourage

excessive repeat purchase. The behaviour mentioned encourages pressure to repeat

purchases of the products in the interests of collecting the series of toys. They create

opportunities by the alignment of products with recent film releases and other events

in popular culture that appeal to the value of children to be socially accepted and

included.

The sponsorship by McDonald's for “Player of the Day” certificates does not sit well

alongside promoting and rewarding activity with high fat/high kilojoule dense food.

The Children’s Codes need to be more direct here:

o These types of products must be monitored aggressively so as they advertise

strictly the food and not the products associated with them.

o Many of the combo packages have healthier options, such as fruit slices or

water. Advertising codes should require that the healthier options in the combo

be advertised as a priority over the less healthy options, such as SSBs and

fries.

Marketing and placement of products goes hand-in-hand with advertising and warrant

their own set of codes. Concerns around the placement of unhealthy foods at

children’s eye level at checkouts, entire aisles in supermarkets dedicated to SSBs,

placement of ‘specials’ (many salt/sugar/fat laden foods) in the supermarket before

you get to the fruit and vegetable section and end-of-aisle specials featuring unhealthy

foods must be seen as compromising the safety and wellbeing of children from

products that do harm to their health.

Thank You for taking our submission into account.

Signed by Edith Bennett, administrator of the HEAL Network Te Tai Tokerau

For further information on this network please see: http://www.manaiapho.co.nz/node/2140